[b-hebrew] repost of question after reasearch
K Randolph
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed May 7 16:51:39 EDT 2008
Dear Dirk:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns at yahoo.com> wrote:
> To all,
>
> After the last series of responses regarding Daniel 9:2, I thought it
> would be helpful to get additional thoughts from other scholars on this
> subject. Since I do not have a background in Biblical Hebrew, it was implied
> by some that my concerns should be dismissed without a detailed answer. I
> have received many responses offline, to which I am very grateful.
>
>
We thought we gave a sufficient, detailed answer.
> In a previous post, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> "However, the Chronicler who lived after the exile, and Daniel, who lived
> at the end of the 70 years explicitly say that the 70 years referred to the
> period when Jesusalem was desolate. This may be because they had another
> text of Jeremiah or because they empirically knew the length of the period.
> In any case, a fine way of understanding ancient texts is to interpret the
> unclear passages in light of the clear ones, and not to reject the clear
> ones because of a certain theology or chronology."
>
> The book Rolf Furuli mentioned previously in his posts (his book,
> copyright 2003) was titled: PERSIAN CHRONOLOGY AND THE LENGTH OF THE
> BABYLONIAN EXILE OF THE JEWS. He states this on page 76.
>
> "A fundamental principle of interpretation which is universally accepted,
> is to interpret an ambiguous passage in the light of an unambiguous passage.
> In our case we have two unambiguous passages, namely, Daniel 9:2 and 2
> Chronicles 36:21, which apply the 70 years of the desolate condition to
> Jerusalem. To start with the seemingly ambiguous words of Jeremiah 25:10 is
> to turn the matter upside down, because the mentioned principle is
> abandoned."
>
> I agree with this principle. It makes a lot of sense. However, I am unsure
> that Daniel 9:2 is the clear and unambigious verse.
It is, when you look at the meanings of all the words in the verse.
It does not say that this first year was the fulfillment of the 70 years of
Jerusalem's desolation (i.e. being without inhabitants), rather it was in
this year that Daniel came to the insight that Jerusalem would be
uninhabited 70 years. You need to look at both at what the verse says, and
what it doesn't say, and it does not say that this first year of Darius was
the fulfillment of the 70 years for Jerusalem.
Furthermore, even though Darius was ethnically a Mede, he continued the
Babylonian system and servitude until he passed from the scene and Cyrus the
Persian took over.
>
> On the other hand, there seems to be wide-spread agreement as to what
> Jeremiah 25:11, 12 says. To date, I still have not found a single Bible that
> would translate Jeremiah 25:11 as meaning anything other than servitude for
> many nations.
In which case, they are the reason that one learns and masters the original
languages in order to understand what the text actually says.
> …
>
> In summary, I would like to re-establish the question. My original
> question was regarding Daniel 9:2 and the word rendered "fulfull"
> ("complete" or "accomplish") in various Bibles. In some Bibles (for example,
> NIV), the seventy years of Jeremiah is equated with Jerusalem's desolation.
> In others, the scripture directs the reader's attention toward the
> relationship between the two periods (70 years "for Babylon" and the
> desolation of Jerusalem). The relationship being that the two periods share
> a common terminal point - the seventy years ends, thereby paving the way for
> the end (fullfill, complete, accomplish) of the desolation.
The problem for you is not the meaning of "fulfill", but of "desolation".
Desolation indicates the removing of inhabitants, not just the servitude.
That 70 year period started when Nebuchadnezzar burned the city, temple and
palace, leaving the city uninhabited.
> Why am I asking this question? There is definitely a period of 70 years -
> but was it a period of desolation or was it of something else? If we say
> that it was the desolation of Jerusalem was 70 years, then we have to adjust
> the "consensus" historical chronology of the period in some way. The
> consensus historical timeline has Babylon destroyed in 539 BC. It also has
> the Jerusalem destroyed in 587 BC. If Jerusalem was re-inhabited a few years
> later (after the Jews returned home), about 537 BC, then we have a period of
> 50 years of desolation. I understand that some doubt can be cast on business
> tablets and administrative documents that document the names of the kings,
> and the succession of the kings. But 20 years worth? As far as I am aware,
> only RF, in a previous post has claimed 90 "anomolous tablets" - but nothing
> as to the nature of the anomolies. RF mentioned VAT 4956, and his work
> regarding this tablet. I have also read articles that answer his
> objections, re-establishing it's validity. Still, there are other
> astronomical diaries (other than VAT 4956) that still indicate 587 as the
> destruction of Jerusalem.
> >From the previous corrispondence on this list I got the feeling that some
> thought I was attempting to disprove the scriptures. However, I am
> attempting to do the opposite. I am saying that Jeremiah had it right. He
> spoke very plainly, so that the translators of every Bible I have seen agree
> on what his words mean. He spoke plainly of 70 years of servitude to Babylon
> of many nations - and that's what happened according to all the historical
> evidence we have now. The later writers simply made reference to the end of
> the 70 years and the relation it had to Jerusalems desolation. They didn't
> try to re-interpret his words. I am saying if you read Jeremiah plainly, he
> got it right. If you read Daniel plainly, he got it right. If you read 2
> Chronicles, the chronicler got it right. They all agree with each other and
> what we know of history - but only if the 70 years is NOT equated with the
> desolation of Jerusalem as the NIV has rendered it in Daniel 9:2.
> I know some of you don't like the idea of saying we know for sure,
> historically, that 587 was the fall of Jerusalem. OK - I understand this.
> But as of right now, there is a lot of evidence pointing toward 587/86 as
> Jerusalem's fall, and it doesn't seem logical to wait for other material
> that may or may not be discovered at some unknown point in the future
> to move the date around; much less move it by 20 years.
> I lay the question back out on the table - now that it is shown the matter
> isn't clear cut. In light of this, and especially the comments on Hebrew
> grammar above, would it not be better to translate Daniel 9:2 more like the
> NASB, rather than what the NIV shows for this verse?
> Thanks!
> Dirk Frulla
> New York
>
> I have neither NIV nor NASB readily available (oh yes, I could check them
up online, but I have the Hebrew which I trust more than all translations).
The Hebrew is pretty clear cut, both in Jeremiah, and in all the other
verses that clearly mention that Jerusalem was to be desolate 70 years. None
of the verses say that the period was to come to an end at the time that
Darius the Mede took over. Rather we go to Isaiah and find that Cyrus was to
bring the people back.
As I said before, I'll say again, forget the historical consensus. Does it
mention Darius the Mede? How long he reigned? Does it mention how poor the
surviving records are of the Medo-Persian empire? The consensus is just
that, a consensus; it may have little to do with what actually happened.
That is why I look at the linguistic evidence, without trying to fit it into
the "consensus".
I get the impression that I am just repeating much of what I wrote before.
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list